124669-what-wildstar-wants-community-project-credd-giveaway
Content ---- ---- ---- I understood the way it was meant just fine. That's why I said The problem is that if you make a video called "What Wildstar Wants", you're claiming to present the opinions of the community as a whole. Your personal interpretation and opinions have no valid place in that--but they're almost the entire narrative of the video. I'm sure they were, but anybody who reads these forums could've told you that. The interesting question is how many of them said F2P, how many said B2P, how many said P2P--and that's nowhere to be found in your video. There's a reason why real summaries of opinion surveys include both the question that was asked and the percentages of people who felt one way or another--that way the data can be interpreted without having to rely on the spin of the person collecting it. The bit in red is where the title of your video becomes problematic. You can't speak for the community if you substitute your own opinion for the community's where you don't like the community's opinions. Your opinion is not "What Wildstar Wants". That's "What Oxz Wants". | |} ---- Technically, i don't see how i can claim to present the opinion of the community as a whole without talking to each and every one of them. (or at least the majority? depending on how you see it) If i don't do that, then no matter how many people i talk to it'll always be a "what does Ox think the community wants.." I just tried to talk to a significant amount of people to add some value to the opinions, rather than it would have been just me guessing. Once again... the people were almost evenly split between the 3 options, and therefore i decided not to go too in-depth in it because it was not an interesting conclusion and would only distract from the rest of the feedback. You imply that i don't like the community's opinion when you have no idea about that. As a matter of fact, i have no real personal preference in any payment model and think they could all work. With those things in mind i tried to leave that discussion in the middle because, once again, i didn't want people to get distracted from other feedback that i think could be more valuable to Carbine. (i don't think anything we say at this moment in time about our preference in payment model helps Carbine anymore..) I do understand your concern, which was also one of mine, but i think i've managed to tackle a big part of it with the amount of people that i talked to as well as the way that i presented the information. This is the last reply that i'll give on this matter, because i'm not interested in an endless discussion about something that contributes nothing to the community. If you don't agree with the video, the way i made it, or my opinion in particular that's fine.. i accept that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Ox.. out B) | |} ---- Did you do many surveys? Anytime you do a survey you HAVE to interpretate on it as well as check for biased numbers, etc, etc. Bottomline is Ox spoke to 200 people, which would put him easily within the 95% confidence interval for Wildstar's population (The mathematics of probability proves the size of the population is irrelevant unless the size of the sample exceeds a few percent of the total population you are examining). So yes, Ox can with 95% confidence speak on behalf of the community. However he did not add any documentation or his survey (which I understood were semi-structured interviews and not survey) questionaire so we can't control for spurious relationships, but given the quite simple research agenda he doesn't really need to. PS: The margin of error (est. 4.63%) is academical to what Ox tries to accomplish here. | |} ---- And yet you did, when you made a video and titled it "What Wildstar Wants". My point here wasn't about payment models any more than your response was. They're simply the place where it becomes most obvious how little you're actually showing us in the way of actual survey results and how much you're giving us your personal interpretation of what people told you. I do data analysis for a living, thanks. That's why I understand how important it is to know what the actual questions were and what the actual percentage of respondents were that went one way or the other--among those who offered an opinion at all, which is much more of a concern in the semi-structured interview format he appears to have used. There is always some interpretation that's intrinsic to the particular questions that are asked and the way the answers are compiled, but the way to make sure that the results aren't critically dependent on the interpreter is to actually see what was asked and what the actual numbers compiled were. That's why even things as brief and superficial as news blurbs summarizing polls usually show the poll question, how the responses were categorized, the number of people who answered with one category or the other, and the margin of error. Even a semi-structured interview can do that kind of thing. So the problem here isn't that he couldn't go through the results of all those surveys and present some numbers that would be interesting and valuable, it's that it's impossible to tell where--if anywhere--he did some actual quantitation; where he's going on his general qualitative impressions; where he's simply emphasizing those bits of feedback that reinforce his own opinions and preferences. That makes it hard to actually extract much value from all that hard work interviewing people, which is too bad. PS. I agree with you that a margin of error is completely academic--there's no results presented to which it could be applied. | |} ---- Although I can see some criticism for the thread/project's title, this reads kinda petty. Obviously this is not an academic study and should not be held to the same standards. Ox lists the stuff people asked for in pretty neutral terms then gives some personal analysis... it's a casual, informal project, and I see no problem in it being offered to the devs as it is, for whatever they want to take from it. Although I've seen most of the stuff listed on the forums before, I found it an interesting watch. Thanks for your effort, Ox. | |} ---- I'm sure Ox could be asked for these numbers and I'm sure he wouldn't mind sharing his findings, perhaps even the raw data. However, technically what Ox did was perfectly legit and sound research. He basically asked 200 people, which puts him WELL within the rights to claim that these are essentially what the community wants. However, obviously if the top 12 are within a few percentages of each other to allow the margin of error to play a factor Ox wouldn't be able to significantly state which is top 1 and then he would have construed his own arguments (and put you in the right to say that). However, I'm sure Ox wouldn't mind discussing his method, put it seems contrary to the point here - and Ox is not out to claim that he's doing science here. He's just trying to create a more nuanced discussion than all these other random threads with people making wild claims to Looking For Raid systems being super desired by the community and stupid things like that. I wouldn't call you petty, but I'd say your criticism is far off the mark here. Learn to provide criticism that is appropriate to the context, otherwise your helpfullness turns into noise and confrontation. | |} ----